Bombay High Court
Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 20 June, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 WP8597.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8597 OF 2015
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Magasvargiya
Kashtakari Sahkari Griha Nirman Society Ltd.,
Through its Chairman,
Ashok Shankarrao Dhanedhar,
Age : 53 Years, Occu. : Labourer,
R/o. : Priyadarshani Indira Nagar,
Garkheda, Aurangabad,
Dist. : Aurangabad .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Collectorate Office,
Aurangabad .. Respondents
Shri Madhav P. Gude, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar , A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J. ) :-
1. Rule.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken
up for final hearing.
3. Mr. Gude, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
2 WP8597.15
that, the petitioner's society is consisting of members of the
backward class i.e. scheduled caste. The aim and object of the
society is to purchase the land and build the houses meant for
backward class members. According to the learned counsel, the
petitioner had applied for allottment of land for the purpose of
construction of houses, however, the said application has been
rejected solely on the basis of the Government Resolution dated
12th July, 2011. The learned counsel submits that, the said
Government Resolution is issued only on the count that, the Apex
Court in a case of Jagpalsingh and others Vs. State of Punjab
reported in 2011 AIR S.C. 1123 had issued certain directions.
The learned counsel states that, the said directions would not
come in the way of the petitioner. The learned counsel relies on
the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition
No. 117 of 2012 dated 03rd August, 2012.
4. Mrs. Gondhalekar, the learned A. G. P. states that, the said
Government Resolution has been issued in consonance with the
directions issued by the Apex Court in a case of Jagpalsingh and
others Vs. State of Punjab referred to supra. No error has
been committed while passing the impugned order.
5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for the respective parties and the judgment
delivered by this court in Writ Petition No. 117 of 2012 referred to
supra.
6. This court in the aforereferred judgment has interpreted the
judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Jagpalsingh and others
Vs. State of Punjab. It has put a gloss over the said judgment
and as stated in the said judgment that the judgment of Apex
3 WP8597.15
Court cannot be read to mean that the State Government has
been prohibited from granting land in accordance with provisions
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government
Lands ) Rules, 1971 to eligible applicants.
7. In light of the above, the impugned order (Exh. P - 4, Page
175) is quashed and set aside. The Respondent / Authority shall
consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with
provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue ( Disposal of
Government Lands ) Rules, 1971 and take decision upon the same
on its own merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously and
preferably within six (6) months.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No costs.
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
sam/June.16
